[jaxie]

There is obviously some sort of connection between Adams and Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-fein...ister-11236645
It's quite a historic image that sky are posting here.

[jet]

Originally Posted by jaxie

There is obviously some sort of connection between Adams and Corbyn. https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-fein...ister-11236645
It's quite a historic image that sky are posting here.

Absolutely.

A week after the Brighton bombing, Corbyn invited Gerry Adams to the Commons.
Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that, according to the evidence he has seen, Adams was not only an IRA member, but sat on its army council.
Corbyn was later arrested while on a pro-IRA protest at the trial of the bomber who had killed five people and injured a further 31.

Re the article you have linked:

Adams says:

"He and (former London mayor) Ken Livingstone and others kept faith and they were the people who said, when others said no, 'talk'.

The only thing Corbyn 'talked' about to Sinn Fein and the IRA was how to get the 'BRITS OUT' of N. Ireland, despite the people of N. Ireland voting democratically to stay as part of the UK - Catholic and Protestant.

Mr Livingstone is currently suspended from the Labour Party following his comments about anti-Semitism, Hitler and Zionism.

Says it all really, the people who cosied up to the IRA terrorists.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

No, I don't believe that, I believe in non - censored discussion. However, with reference to the thread 'Here's something about Jacob Rees-Mogg'...it is clear we are not allowed to discuss 'the other side of the coin' and all references to the other side (Corbyn) are promptly deleted.
So why weren't all references to the Tories and May in this thread deleted, as it is about 'Corbyn and his leftist clique'?
And in future, will all references in a thread to any other than the politician in question be deleted? The rules on this forum are becoming very confusing indeed.

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Can you explain how its off topic to make comparisons between one possible future PM and another?

As for baiting, that came from you and others before there were any posts about Corbyn.

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Let's be accurate. Reese Mogg was being called scum and rancid and all sorts. I pointed out people would find that unacceptable if it were Corbyn. That is hardly any attack. It's fact.

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There wasn't any comparison though, people saw criticism of Moggs-Rees and then brought up Corbyn as a form of attack to take the thread off topic and probably get it closed.

If the situation was reversed the outcome would be the same. We often delete off topic and baiting comments, no one is exempt from that.

As for your baiting accusations, where did I bait anyone in that thread? Can you point it out for me?

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

Well then delete the non - productive posts, including the non - productive ones like SCUM - (but you obviously think SCUM is productive.)
Why was Corbyn not allowed to be mentioned at all? Every reference to him was deleted.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

That's not baiting, that's my opinion, he is scum and I explained why I thought that later in the topic. If you can't accept that and decided to help in taking the thread off topic then that's your problem.

You can't just brand opinions you dislike as baiting. If you disliked me calling him scum then you should have argued the point without trying to derail the topic into another Corbyn topic when he didn't have any relevance to the topic.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People are allowed to call a public figure scum just like you are allowed to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. Freedom of Speech works both ways.

People are also allowed to find things unacceptable and you and others could have argued why you believed it was unacceptable to call Moggs scum without dragging the thread off topic. It just came down to 'Oh, you don't like Rees-Moggs? WELL YOU LIKE CORBYN AND HE LOVES THE IRA!'

That's not productive.

Except that's not what I said at all is it? You just made that up.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's not baiting, that's my opinion, he is scum and I explained why I thought that later in the topic. If you can't accept that and decided to help in taking the thread off topic then that's your problem.

You can't just brand opinions you dislike as baiting. If you disliked me calling him scum then you should have argued the point without trying to derail the topic into another Corbyn topic when he didn't have any relevance to the topic.

That's fine, if the opinions on Corbyn were also allowed, which they weren't.

Of course he had relevance. The discussion of a possible future PM is always going to produce a comparison to another possible future PM especially when the one in question is being called scum and other denigrating names. This IS a discussion forum with human beings posting in it, isn't it?
So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance, is that right?

[GoldHeart]

Whether you agree with politics or not,somebody has to run this country .
It's democracy . When the next election rolls around I think the Tories will get in AGAIN

I know some people don't bother voting ,but I don't like the attitude of "ohh well all MP'S are as bad as each other so I'm not voting" . Somebody still has to win , so you might as well vote for the best of a bad bunch and imo that option is Labour .

[jet]

I'm glad I don't live in the UK and have to decide. I wouldn't vote for either at present.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by jet

I'm glad I don't live in the UK and have to decide. I wouldn't vote for either at present.

Therein lays my problem.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Well then delete the non - productive posts, including the non - productive ones like SCUM - (but you obviously think SCUM is productive.)
Why was Corbyn not allowed to be mentioned at all? Every reference to him was deleted.

My opinion is perfectly valid, I know you dislike other people's opinions but no amount of reaching is going to change the fact that I'm as every bit entitlted to call a politcian scum as you are to call another a terrorist sympathiser.

The Corbyn posts were deleted because, like I said before, they were mainly a way of attacking forum member's opinions by using someone you think they like. It's a topic about how a politician voted on in various issues and it got dragged into being another mud slinging match by the usual suspects.

Like I said before, if you had a problem with my terminology you could have argued against it without derailing the thread.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Except that's not what I said at all is it? You just made that up.

That, my dear, was not a quote but an overall impression of the posts that were deleted.

[Tom4784]

Let's put it this way, if this thread suddenly became overrun with jibes about May or Rees-Moggs aimed at other members as a way to derail the thread and cause drama then it would be deleted just like the stuff in the other thread was.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

My opinion is perfectly valid, I know you dislike other people's opinions but no amount of reaching is going to change the fact that I'm as every bit entitlted to call a politcian scum as you are to call another a terrorist sympathiser.

The Corbyn posts were deleted because, like I said before, they were mainly a way of attacking forum member's opinions by using someone you think they like. It's a topic about how a politician voted on in various issues and it got dragged into being another mud slinging match by the usual suspects.

Like I said before, if you had a problem with my terminology you could have argued against it without derailing the thread.

There you go again, baiting.
And if you had a problem with anyone's terminology you could have argued against it without getting posts deleted or agreeing with posts being deleted.

[Tom4784]

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Let's put it this way, if this thread suddenly became overrun with jibes about May or Rees-Moggs aimed at other members as a way to derail the thread and cause drama then it would be deleted just like the stuff in the other thread was.

Most of the posts weren't aimed at other members, they were criticising Corbyn. Yet they were ALL deleted.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

I think its important that this point is cleared up:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That, my dear, was not a quote but an overall impression of the posts that were deleted.

An impression that was not true. And please don't patronise me.


Come on Dezzy answer jet’s question.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Surely this thread and the other Corbyn threads are proof that no such 'censorship' exists. If it did, this thread would have been deleted long ago.

The Corbyn posts are being deleted in that thread because they are off-topic and baiting for the most part. It's getting to be a problem where people in this section tend to flood topics that are unrelated to Corbyn with responses about Corbyn to take threads off topic.

Who on earth do you think you are kidding. If one method of shut-down isn’t working just accuse posters of baiting instead. How very Convenient!!!